Ahead of the June primary election, the Southern California News Group compiled a list of questions to pose to the candidates who wish to represent you. You can find the full questionnaire below. Questionnaires may have been edited for spelling, grammar, length and, in some instances, to remove hate speech and offensive language.
Name: Mark Takano
Current job title: Congressmember
Age: 65
Political party affiliation: Democratic
Incumbent: Yes
Other political positions held: Riverside Community College Board of Trustees
City where you reside: Riverside, CA
Campaign website or social media: marktakano.com/
From voter ID to war powers and from immigration to tariffs, Congress has tackled many issues over the past year. What do you, though, see as the top three issues impacting Californians, and what specifically could you do as a lawmaker to address these issues? (Please answer in 250 words or less, and keep your response to future proposals.)
The top three issues facing Californians are the rising cost of living, the lack of housing, and attacks on community members. The main driver of all of these issues is Donald Trump and a Republican Congress that bows to his every whim. The solution is simple: vote them out and vote for people who will stand up to them.
First, the cost of living is rising day after day, and Trump’s tariffs and his war of choice against Iran are making things worse. Republicans have consistently voted against efforts to rein in Trump’s tariffs and the war, and instead voted to fund billionaire tax breaks by gutting Medicaid.
Second, Republicans refuse to take bold action on housing like passing my Stop Wall Street Landlords Act, which would end big institutional investors’ ability to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize buying single-family homes and drive up housing costs for working Californians.
Third, Donald Trump and Republicans are using ICE and CBP to attack our neighbors and friends at every turn. If Democrats take back the House, my focus will be on keeping our neighbors safe, enforcing accountability, and reigning in this reckless Administration that is exacerbating the cost-of-living crisis.
Speaking of voter ID, the president has implored Congress to approve legislation that would require people to show proof of citizenship in order to vote. What role do you believe the federal government plays in telling states how to conduct their own elections, as dictated by the U.S. Constitution? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
Fraudulent voting by non-citizens in elections is not a problem. Non-citizen voting in federal, state, and most local elections is illegal and subject to harsh punishments. Very few cases have ever been proven. They are extremely rare. The SAVE Act, proposed by President Trump and Congressional Republicans, would mandate many provisions that would suppress voter participation of significant numbers of citizens, such as requiring a birth certificate or a passport just to register to vote. This might seem reasonable, but think of the number of women whose adopted names through marriage no longer match the names on their birth certificates. Significant numbers of Americans do not possess passports.
The Constitution, in what is known as the Elections Clause, assigns states the power to determine the “Times, Places, and Manner” of holding federal elections. Congress can “make or alter’ the rules established by the states, but the states have primary authority over the administration of the details of conducting elections. The President has no delegated authority to make or alter these rules through executive order.
I oppose the SAVE Act because it is a solution to a non-existent problem, it suppresses legitimate voter participation, and it imposes unnecessary costs on states to conduct elections.
What, in your opinion, should the federal government focus on when it comes to immigration policy? For example, do you place a priority on border security, visas for high-skilled workers, refuge for asylum seekers, etc., and why? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
The Trump Administration is pursuing bad-faith enforcement of our immigration laws. It has allocated tens of billions of dollars to building unnecessary detention facilities and a border wall. This has not made our nation safer but has created more chaos and diverted money that could have provided citizens with health care and other benefits. Americans agree that dangerous noncitizen criminals should be a priority for removal, but instead ICE agents are under pressure to meet politically determined quotas for mass deportations. This has resulted in racial profiling, with American citizens often feeling compelled to carry passports to prove their citizenship. Citizens have been harassed, wrongfully detained, and in some instances killed by federal immigration officers. There should be no more masked agents, no more entering homes without a judicial warrant, and no more arrests of individuals complying with court appearances. These tactics violate basic fairness and undermine the rule of law. ICE and CBP have become the personal militia of Trump. I oppose continuing to fund ICE and CBP until there are guardrails put in place that respect the civil rights of all persons.
Asylum seekers should have their cases adjudicated expeditiously and fairly. This means hiring more immigration judges and ensuring adequate legal representation of asylees in order to ensure prompt processing of cases. These judges must be independent.
America benefits from immigrants who bring their energy and talent to our universities, businesses, and communities.
It’s been over a year since Gov. Gavin Newsom asked the federal government for supplemental disaster aid to help Southern California communities rebuild after the devastating Palisades and Eaton wildfires, but neither President Donald Trump nor Congress has acted. What would you do to push for the funding, besides writing letters to the Trump administration or the leaders of Congress? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
Disaster aid should not be used as a political weapon. Donald Trump is withholding disaster relief money from Southern California out of political vengeance. When I entered Congress in 2013, I joined a bipartisan effort to provide supplemental disaster relief money for areas affected by Super Storm Sandy. The prior Congress was deadlocked because of extreme Tea Party Republicans who believed one part of the country shouldn’t come to the aid of another. When a national disaster strikes any part of our country, providing relief should not be constrained by political grievance or extreme fiscal ideology. The Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse. Hopefully, there will be a new majority that will use the appropriations process as leverage to ensure disaster aid gets to Southern California and all communities in need.
Do you support a ban or restriction on congressional lawmakers and their families from buying or selling individual stocks? Why or why not? And what would you propose to ensure lawmakers aren’t using their positions to engage in insider trading? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
Members of Congress and members of their immediate family should not be allowed to buy and sell individual stocks. I also believe the President, Vice President, and their families should not be able to trade stock either. I have never bought or sold any individual stock. Our laws should prohibit insider trading within all three branches of our government. Special knowledge about decisions to be made should not be used to the advantage of any government official. Public office should not be used as a means to enrich oneself. I have signed onto a discharge petition in Congress to support a ban on congressional lawmakers and the President and Vice President buying and selling individual stock.
Do you support stronger regulations on pollution and carbon emissions? If so, how would you ensure those regulations aren’t overly burdensome on small businesses or lower-income families? And if not, how do you propose lawmakers protect the environment and curtail the impacts of climate change? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
Stronger regulations on pollution and carbon emissions, reasonably phased in, must be a part of the needed changes we need to make. But we must focus on making the transition from high-carbon-emitting cars and machinery to zero-emission technology affordable to low-income people and businesses. We can do this with reasonable timelines and financial incentives. I am proud of voting in favor of the Inflation Reduction Act, which was the single largest investment for clean energy and combatting climate change in American history. Unfortunately, Republicans gutted large portions of the law, hurting California’s environment and economy. I would vote to reinstate the repealed sections of the law to make needed progress in combatting climate change and improving air quality in the Inland Empire. Furthermore, President Trump, through deregulation and executive action, is undermining a national transition to a more climate-friendly energy mix. He is determined to increase support for the fossil fuel industry, which already receives tax benefits and subsidies. Trump has been irrationally hostile to the development of renewable energy sources. He recently attempted to renege on a billion-dollar deal for renewable wind energy.
Very promising renewable energy sources, such as green hydrogen, can fuel heavy vehicles like trucks and reduce carbon emissions. Many truckers are small, independent owners of their rigs. Trucks that run on hydrogen fuel cell technology will have some upfront costs to acquire, but helping truckers with financial incentives to acquire the new technology is an example of how we can help small businesses and the community at the same time. Federal, state, and local officials can work together in promoting the scaling up of local hydrogen production and distribution.
President Donald Trump has significantly increased spending for the U.S. Department of Defense. Would you, as a member of Congress, approve additional dollars for the military if the president were to ask for more funding? How would you ensure that any military spending does not end up putting the American people or national security in harm’s way? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
The Department of Defense is already spending nearly one trillion dollars. Now, Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth are asking Congress for even more money, specifically to the tune of $200 billion to fund this latest war in the Middle East. My position has been clear: I will be voting against it. The biggest threat to our national security is the incompetence of this White House and Secretary Hegeseth, who has fired dozens of experienced military leaders. Trump is building an officer corps of MAGA-Yes people and ignoring the assessment of the intelligence community. I’m not convinced a blank check to this Administration will make our nation safer. More money cannot compensate for poor judgment. This Administration embraces a war of choice, not of necessity.
Under what specific circumstances do you believe the U.S. should engage in a war? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
The United States should only go to war when our homeland or a core national interest faces an imminent threat. President Donald Trump’s war on Iran and his justifications have shifted and changed. His claims of an imminent nuclear threat posed by Iran are dubious, and there should have been a debate and a vote by Congress before such a significant military action was undertaken.
Do you believe a president should seek congressional approval before engaging in military action overseas? Why, or why not? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
Only Congress has the authority to declare war, but this Republican-led Congress has unfortunately become a doormat for President Trump’s foreign interventions abroad. While this is a bipartisan issue, this Republican Congress has set a new low for subservience to Donald Trump. Congressional Republicans are in charge and have demonstrated no spine or backbone, unwilling to even hold public hearings about Trump’s military interventions abroad. The American public and our servicemembers lose when Congress refuses to engage in its constitutional war-making responsibilities.
Congress, in theory, is supposed to serve as a check on the president through budgetary, legislative and oversight powers. Do you believe Congress has fulfilled that obligation during the past two administrations, with one being a Democrat and the other a Republican? Why or why not? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
Congress should be a check on the presidency. It should take its institutional role seriously regardless of whether the occupant of the Oval Office is from the same political party. A good example of this oversight authority is through the Inspectors General (IG). When I chaired the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, I relied on the VA Inspector General to provide me with his unvarnished findings, even when the VA Secretary was from my own party. The IG has broad investigatory authority to gather information, including through subpoena. He or she reports directly to Congress, to both the majority and the minority. President Biden dismissed only one Senate-confirmed Inspector General for cause and another acting Inspector General. He respected their independence and their roles in investigating waste, fraud, and abuse in the government.
In contrast, Donald Trump arrogantly fired 17 IGs in his first year of office. President Biden would not have dared to do such a thing even when Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress because Democrats would have objected and shamed such behavior.
My Republican colleagues in Congress looked the other way at Trump’s mass firing of inspector generals. Congress lost an important non-partisan tool to check abuses of power, fraud, waste, and wrongdoing.
Governments around the world are increasingly considering an age ban or other restrictions on social media use among young people, citing mental health and other concerns. Should Congress adopt such restrictions? If so, what specific restrictions do you propose? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
Australia has recently implemented a policy that restricts all social media for children under 16. The program is only three months old, but I am interested in seeing the results of their experiment and others like it. Congress should closely study the outcome of these programs and look to see if they are feasible at a national level. However, any restrictions on content access for minors should not inhibit access to mental health services.
Statistically, violent crime rates in California are on the decline, yet residents still don’t feel safe or at ease in their communities. How do you see your role in Congress in addressing the underlying issues that make Californians feel unsafe in their own neighborhoods? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
My role in Congress is working with local governments to ensure funding for appropriate equipment that will facilitate safer, more effective policing. For example, the City of Moreno Valley asked for funding for vehicles and equipment that would enable trained mental health professionals to ride along in certain patrols and help de-escalate preventable violent encounters.
Persistent homelessness creates a sense of public unease, especially as it affects residential neighborhoods. This is a challenge that must be met by local, state, and federal officials working together to provide affordable housing coupled with supportive services. Durable solutions must be created for those with long-term disabilities related to chronic mental illness and addictions. For others, effective case management will be necessary to promote sustainable independent living.
Local police agencies need to have the trust of the people they protect and serve. Therefore, they cannot be feared as extensions of immigration enforcement. No one should be afraid to report a crime for fear of becoming subject to immigration enforcement.
There are term limits to serve in the California Legislature, but none to serve in Congress. Would you advocate for term limits for House members? Why or why not? If you support term limits, how many years maximum should a House member be allowed to serve? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
U.S. House members face elections every two years per the constitutional design of the founders. In the case of a vacancy caused by death, disability, resignation, or expulsion, a replacement must be chosen by special election of the people—not by appointment. Term limits, for members of the House, can be effectively imposed by the voters who judge their competency to hold office and who hold them to account for their performance. Frequent elections give voters opportunities to limit the tenure of Representatives.
What’s a hidden talent you have? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
Reverse engineering a good food experience at a restaurant or someone’s home. I think to myself, “How can I make this at home for myself?” And quite often I am reasonably successful.